Many
of us dream of moving to a place that we believe conforms better to our values
and sensibilities. This is a story of a woman who decided to make her home,
Tulsa, better than moving to her idea, Portland.

In
an interview Guy Caron, NDP leadership candidate, lays out his vision for the future of Canada's economy.

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

The
New Democratic Party released its membership information in the lead up to the
leadership vote this fall. These numbers matter now because they will the party
members eligible to cast ballots for the next leader of the party.

Impressively
the membership has reached 124000 members, which roughly puts it back to where
it was at the 2012 leadership race. For many observers the success in the party
in getting new/renewed members was somewhat surprising. Since the 2015 election
and the ousting of Tom Mulcair the party has felt somewhat listless. Anecdotally
the members I have met have not felt optimistic about the party moving into the
future. That's not to say the party is dead, I think the average member now
sees government as out of reach for the next little while.

However,
as the leadership race has moved on I have heard New Democrats expressing
greater pleasure with the candidates in the race. I think for many, as with the
Conservative leadership race, it felt like the A-team sat this one out. I think
it's clear though that the four candidates grew during the race and expanded
their abilities and reach. While coming from a place of bias, I am hearing more
and more positive feedback about Guy Caron after his debate performances and a
series of strong endorsements.

The
party also announced the geographic distribution of its membership. It is as
follows:

Province/Territory

Membership

Alberta

10188

British
Columbia

31974

Manitoba

10134

New
Brunswick

737

Newfoundland
and Labrador

1260

Nova
Scotia

3595

Northwest
Territories

56

Nunavut

21

Ontario

52200

Prince
Edward Island

140

Quebec

4907

Saskatchewan

8083

Yukon

503

There
are areas clearly where the NDP needs to do a better job in recruiting members
and building the grassroots. Clearly Atlantic Canada and the North needs some
attention by dedicated activists. Sadly, so does Quebec. Areas of strength are
not all that surprising. British Columbia is freshly out of an election
campaign and has a new NDP government, Ontario is the country's largest
province and has two leadership candidates who call it home. Alberta could have
stronger numbers, but it has its own government and Manitoba is home to Niki
Ashton and a recent NDP government.

Geography
doesn't matter in the NDP race as the election will use one member one vote.
Still, this may suggest that Jagmeet Singh's efforts to sign up new members in
Ontario and BC has paid off handsomely. CBC has a nice write up here. In the discussion you can see that party memberships are down across the
country but up starkly in Ontario.

Looking
at these numbers I cannot help but feel this provides more evidence for why a
system like the Conservatives used would better serve the party. Right now this
race looks like who can win over the GTA and Greater Vancouver.

As
I said in an earlier post there is not a tremendous amount of information we
can go off of. Jagmeet Singh and Charlie Angus can definitely be considered the
top contenders, but we cannot be certain. A huge percentage of members are
undecided and we are three weeks away from the vote. We now know who may be
voting, even if we have no ability to predict how they will vote.

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

I'm
definitely late to this party, but it is one of those pieces of fiction that
has stuck with me over the last couple of months. See the trailer here.

Perhaps
the most successful component of The Handmaid's Tale is the introduction to the
world of Gilead. Gilead is the fundamentalist republic which has displaced that
United States government. When we are first introduced to the world of The
Handmaid's Tale is alien and strange. The expressions are meaningless to us,
the clothes are foreign or unfamiliar, and the culture is almost
unrecognizable. Of course, it's not foreign completely, the place is still
recognizable as North America, the language is American English, but there's
something deeply wrong. The best part of the entire series, in my opinion, are
the flashbacks.

Our
main character, June/Offred, played by Elizabeth Moss, often reflects on her
time before she was assigned to be Commander Waterford's handmaid. Handmaids,
for those who haven't watched the show or read the novel, are fertile women
assigned to the elite families in order to produce children. Human fertility
has plummeted and the number of successful live births has decreased
significantly. Therefore controlling fertile women is seen as critical for the
survival of humanity. June's life in the near-future over the course of several
episodes illustrates how everyday life was undermined by the slow crisis and
created the condition for radical social transformation and oppression.

Two
flashbacks in particular stand out. The first I wish to call out is when June
gives birth to her daughter, Hannah. The hospital is surrounded by dozens of
people praying for the mother's going into the maternity ward and for the
newborns within. The maternity ward feels more like an abandoned wing of the
hospital. June goes with a nurse and her child to a vacant nursery. All of the
other children have died or worsened over night. Perhaps more significantly,
the nurse is the first character chronologically, as far as I can remember, to
use the religious extremists expressions "Under His eye," and
"Blessed is the fruit." It seems natural but it disturbing knowing
where such believe inevitably will lead.

The
second flashback takes place at a future date from the one discussed above. The
interim government passes a law that bars women from work and transfers
ownership of their bank accounts to men in their lives (husbands, fathers, what
have you). June and her friend Moira (Samira Wiley) join a group to protest
this radical changes. The protest turns violent in a dramatic scene where the
religious authorities open fire upon them.

Another
call out I will make for the show is the story of Ofglen, played by Alexis
Bledel. Her appearance in the show is comparatively brief, but does a great
deal to show the reach of the world and its darker elements. While I think the
"Canada as utopia" trope is a bit heavy-handed I liked all of the
elements of Americans trying to seek refuge, or figure their lives out in
Toronto is pretty compelling.

The
show is ultimately about women, their bodies, and control. Sex is often used in
the show to demonstrate some point about those three elements. Those scenes can
be long and uncomfortable, but I believe that's the point. The viewer is
suppose to confront the scenes and deal with it.

Though
I should spend more time on it I'll briefly say that the show is stunningly
beautiful. The cinematography is very powerful and captures the colour and mood
of the world perfectly. In many ways the world is desaturated of colour, but
not to the extent that it is rendered lifeless, merely stark. The music and
sound design are appropriately ominous and foreboding at the right moments and
guides you appropriately through the story. The performances are very strong,
particularly from Yvonne Strahovski and Ann Dowd.

I
would recommend The Handmaid's Tale, but I would have the caveat that the show
is quite violent, including sexual violence of many different kinds. This is a
world where women are explicitly objects. That their autonomy, rights and reproduction
are the exclusive domain of powerful men. This review does not encapsulate the
show, but if at all interested I would recommend giving the pilot a watch.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

On
Saturday violence erupted on the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia escalating in vehicular homicide wherein a car was driven through a crowd of
people. That's probably the most bloodless, tame way I could describe what
occurred a few days ago, but this is an opinion-based blog, so it's probably
time to put that aside.

Would
highly recommend watching this New York Times video giving a simple breakdown
in the events that occurred in Charlottesville. Violence in Charlottesville was
likely inevitable on some scale. Neo-Nazis tend to stir up strong feelings, surprisingly.
However, there were at least two groups who were anathema to one another. The
first was a demonstration and march by White supremacists and neo-Nazis who
gathered in park and intended to march through the city to Emancipation Park. A
group of counter-protestors gathered at nearby park and intended to
countermarch to disrupt their gathering.

While
I think that it has been pretty disturbing all on its own, I don't particularly
want to discuss the nature of response to these events. Though from what I've
seen I am none-too-pleased by some of the media coverage. Some have seemed to
find far too much comfort in the "their both to blame" narrative.

I
think we have to take a moment now to reflect on how the hell we came to a
point in 2017 where people are chanting racist, literal Nazi slogans, waving
Nazi, Confederate and other right-wing flags in America. While I cannot substantiate the veracity of the tweets
I saw a number of posts apparently from veterans (this is where it gets
dubious) about having fought the Nazis and now their flags are waved by
Americans claiming to be patriots. Something has gone deeply wrong here.

In
a certain sense this is nothing new. In the far-right and white nationalist
movements of the United States there has always been a blend of American
patriotic and Nazi/German imagery. Right-wing militias, survivalists, Aryan
Nation, and certain biker gangs have all formed a cohort of white supremacists.
The Nazis are the go-to villains in much of American culture, yet we see with
far greater public acknowledgement that there are those who view Hitler as one
of the good guys.

It's
a baffling about face, especially given the degree to which America's history
in World War II made the country what it is today. Still, I don't expect
twenty-first century racists and fascists to have a strong grasp of history.

White
supremacy has always been tied to terrorism. This is a fact. If you don't
believe me do a casual search for the history of the KKK and lynchings. There
is a certain dark poetry that the vehicular murder of a protestor and the
injury of nineteen others mirrors attacks by Islamic radicals in recent years.

I
am going to try to keep my remarks balanced here. I do not believe we're seeing
a mass movement of grassroots American Nazis. I do believe that in the last few
years that far-right rhetoric has been normalized to a certain extent. A few
years ago these people would be far more marginalized and few would be willing to
publicly defend them. Parts of the far-right, the racist right, is now part of
normal discourse. I don't put this on Donald Trump. This has been an element of
American culture for decades, and normalized particularly in the wake of 2007
and during the Obama years and the Tea Party.

America
in 2017 is not Weimar Germany. I hate that I have to say that so sincerely.
What is socially acceptable, or reasonable within the public discourse though
is increasingly embracing these people, and if it doesn't they create their own
media to share their own twisted ideology. This problems is only likely to get
worse. Racism, fascism and Nazism are inherently violent ideologies and we
should sadly be braced for more incidents such as this. There is no part of
that that isn't heartbreaking.

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

I
instinctively dislike elements of the 'Nanny State.' With some exceptions it
seems to me that certain governments are far too willing to interfere in the
private lives of its citizens. Some regulations make sense as they have a
public health connection, others less so. The first one that pops into mind is
the pit bull ban in Ontario. It doesn't bother me much as I dislike dogs, but it
hardly seems like the role of the government to pick and choose acceptable
breeds.

However,
something popped into my mind lately and I have a hard time shaking the fact
that there might be something to the fact that we may require a little more
government interference in our lives in a certain way. I want to talk about
sugar.

When
I heard about the initial spate of sugar taxes I have to admit I was highly
dubious. It felt like unnecessary interference in people's lives and an
irritating "Father Knows Best" approach to public policy. However, in
the years since the first controversial sugar tax proposals I have become
increasingly familiar with the negative role sugar plays in our private and
communal lives.

Talking
about nutrition and diet information on the internet feels virtually pointless
to me to a certain extent. Whenever I have sought even basic answers to
questions the internet will spit back contradictory advice. This is besides the
point, I just say this because I'm going to be light on sources for this one.

There
seems to be a growing academic and public awareness of the problems related to
sugar. By sugar I mean refined white sugar and similar additives. This
information had been bouncing around my head for a few years but it came to a
point when I watched a video talking about how sugar has become such a problem
in the North American diet.

I
have no doubt that there are flaws in that video. Here are the salient points.
A public association between fat and weight gain/ill-health created a strong
stigma for fat content in foods. To improve taste sugar was added. No to
mention sugar is used as a preservative and is present in large quantities in a
huge array of products.

Over
the decades there has been a growing obesity epidemic and rise in diseases such
as diabetes. Trying to change public perception on issues like this seem near
impossible. Every day for the rest of your life you could be told the sugar in
your soda pop is cutting you life short and you'd still probably regularly
ingest one. I know this, and I do.

Sometimes
the state has a duty to discourage destructive behaviours. I hesitate to
support something like a sugar tax because I know immediately that the burden
would fall disproportionately upon those disadvantaged and least able to afford
it. Still, policymakers may have to contend with the large quantities of sugar
in our diets and the social and personal impacts that may have.

Friday, August 4, 2017

Sorry for the delay in the post. I was working on it yesterday and it got so late it seemed silly to post it when no one would see it. Strong
Towns looks at housing in San Francisco and affordable housing in general.

Eric
Grenier takes a look at the NDP leadership race and discounts some of the
talking points about fundraising. Donor analysis is perhaps misleading. I've given to three leadership candidates
so I appear as a unique donor in three camps.

Researchers have concluded that 13 Reasons Why had
a negative impact on mental health.

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

I
am a supporter of a podcast call The Mixed Six.
As a reward for backing the podcast I get the privilege of submitting questions
for the hosts to answer. The two hosts are well-educated and modestly
inebriated men having heady conversations over beers. The conceit is basically
the best conversations I have with my friends after about three or more beers.
I submitted a question on the week of Canada for their perspectives on Canada
and its influence on American debates as Americans, which they answered in episode
19. They are both lefties, it is safe to say, and I found both of their takes
interesting and it inspired some thinking on my part.

It
is no secret that Canada is often used as a prop during American political
debates. Our country plays an important role in the rhetorical exchange of Americans,
but the interesting thing it isn't Canada itself that plays a part in this
debate, it is the conception of America. Both Spencer and Caleb of The Mixed
Six cottoned onto this distinction immediately. Discussions in America about
Canada aren't really about Canada for the most part, they are about America.
The same is true to a lesser extent here, but Canadians have a greater
familiarity with American and vice-versa so it's possible that our
conversations are more grounded in the real experience of American lives.

Depending
on an American's given political perspective Canada can be an illustration to
how thing should/could be or an abject lesson in policy failures. For the
conception of Canada the facts as relates to this is entirely irrelevant. Perhaps
the best case study for this is to look at how Americans discuss our healthcare
system. For many on the American left Canada is a model for what healthcare in
the United States could be. We have universal care that does not exclude any
Canadian on the basis of wealth. Even as a person familiar with these issues in
America I don't understand American
healthcare. How many times have you heard distortions about the nature of our
healthcare? I don't view it as perfect, but it's certainly offers trade-offs
I'm willing to accept. From the conservative point of view we live in a
rationed system of long wait times and privation. Both sides caricature life in
our country as a stick to beat the other, not to say anything about Canada.

This
fetishization of Canada is epitomized during controversial elections and with
coverage of our 'beloved' Prime Minister. It was widely reported that the
Canadian immigration website crashed on the night of the American election and
the days followed it. Liberal/progressive Americans often use the refrain that
if a conservative wins they will flee to Canada. It is a convenient short-hand
to reject the reactionary element of American political life. It's not truly
rooted in a sense of Canada as a real place. Likewise the humiliating fawning
the world does over our Prime Minister really fails to paint an accurate
picture of his government or its policies. Would international press celebrate
his feminist credentials if they saw the arms deal to Saudi Arabia? Or the way
junior female cabinet ministers have been repeatedly thrown to the wolves? Or
what about his broken promises on key electoral issues, or he violation of his
government's commitments to Indigenous Canadians?

While
familiarity breeds contempt I think is more accurate to say American
familiarity with Canada has created complacency. Canada is as different as a
subset of America, like how California or the South is distinct from the rest
of the country. Canada is America but with French people, it's colder and has
healthcare.

Ultimately
this misrepresentation in foreign media reinforces and lends strength to those
comfortable in the status quo. The privileged can pat themselves on the back
because despite his flaws Justin Trudeau is not Donald Trump, which is hardly
convincing enough on its own. Doubling down on our own (unearned) smug
superiority is hardly helpful for Canadians. It's a curious mix of reactions.
On the one hand we want to be acknowledged for our successes without becoming
complacent by them.

Ultimately
very few of us know another culture, country or society. What we have is our
conception of them. Our broad understanding of these places drives our
reactions to them and perhaps provides tools for our own debates. While it may
be nicer to have the world understand us better I think it is more important to
be more critical of these reflections back on ourselves and not stare too
deeply into blurry that is so appealing.